Non-Party Political Processess

Many of these action groups were registered and received foreign funds. A phenomenon that Prakash Karat of the CPI(M) decried as an attempt to divert radicalised youth into ‘non-revolutionary’ activities. Prof. Rajni Kothari however saw this as the emergence of a new non-party political process raising great expectations.
 

The ‘grassroots’ movements and non-party formations posit a different social context from that of the ‘incrementalists’ or the revolutionaries. Their intervention comes at a time when existing institutions and theoretical models have run their course and there is a search for new instruments of political action. They are attempts to open alternative political spaces outside the usual arenas of party and government.  It is an attempt at redefining the content of politics. Issues that were not seen as amenable of political action – people’s health, rights to forests and community resources, even personal and primordial issues as are involved in the struggle for women’s rights – get defined as political. The struggle is not limited to economic and political demands, but is extended to cover ecological, cultural and educational issues as well.  The need is for people to wage sustained struggle not just against a particular local tyrant but against the larger social system. Not everyone involved in popular movements sees it in this manner. Many of them are too pre-occupied with immediate struggles. Others are suspicious of abstractions and aggregates. In any case the conditions for concerted and consolidated action informed by an adequate theory are just not there. And yet there is enough evidence to suggest that underlying the micro-movements is a search and restlessness for both a more adequate understanding of the forces at work and a more adequate response to them.  A more cohesive and comprehensive macro-formation is not yet in sight despite being widely recognised. On the whole, though it would be a mistake to think of these action groups as one would think of political parties. Their role is neither antagonistic nor complementary with existing parties. It is a role at once more limited (in space and expanse) and more radical (taking up issues that parties have failed to). The individual effort may be expressed in micro-terms but it deals with conditions that are caused by larger macro structures. The non-party formations are thus to be viewed as part of a larger movement for global transformation in which non-state actors on the one hand and non-territorial crystallisations on the other are emerging, and playing new roles, taking up cudgels against imperialist forces.  Adapted from:   Rajni Kothari, The Non-Party Political Process, Economic and Political Weekly, Vol.XIX No.5. February, 1984. [R.Q40.688] [J.Q40.040284EPW].

As various peoples struggles gained ground, there was a multiplicity of groups, each involved in their own issues. There were attempts to articulate commoners as in Anandvan. But the coming together crystalised at the great Harsud Rally, creating formations like Jan Vikas Andolan, and National Alliance for Peoples’ Movement.

The question is whether these processes can have effective political impact and serve as an alternative political mechanism, outside the pale of mainstream electoral party politics.
 
Other references
Rajni Kothari, On the Non-Party Process: the NGOs, the State and world capitalism. Lokayan, Delhi. 4(5). 1986. [J.Q40.1086LOK06].

Harsh Sethi, Groups in New Politics of Transformation. A mimeograph. [R.Q40.616].

S Pendse, AK Roy, and H Sethi, People’s Participation: A look at Non-Party Political Formations in India. A mimeograph. January, 1982. [R.Q40.683].
 

Post Harsud Networks   The fragmentation and discordance among non-party formations especially between what are called NGOs and people’s struggles (mass-based, community- based, issue-based initiatives) has been a feature of the development scene in India since early days of development efforts for Structural Change. The latter organised a series of meetings at which individuals and groups from both sides of the divide were able to come together for a dialogue. This process was cemented at the historic Harsud Rally in 1989, in which the NBA played a key role. It organised the rally to protest against the Narmada Projects in particular, using them as a symbol of the larger malaise – destructive development.  Out of this series of meetings, the Jan Vikas Andolan was born at Bhopal in December 1989. There was a general agreement on the need for concerted collective action: spelling out alternative stands on vital issues of development, advocating specific policies on these issues, and supporting people’s struggles against destructive and exploitative development policies and practices.  But the collective was short lived. The so-called people’s movements and mass-based initiatives gathered under the banner of the Bharat Jan Andolan. Funding, its volume and its foreign sources, was a key sticky point. There was ideological reservation. Institutionalised development efforts were considered less progressive, radical, and relevant. NGOs were perceived to be collaborationist and detrimental to real revolution, and to real people’s development.  The year 1993 brought a new initiative with overt political overtones into play. National Alliance of People’s Movements, a non-party forum, proposed to bring together the collective strength of various mass-based popular struggles and initiatives. The assumption was that there is widespread support for a people-based development paradigm, which is weak because of dispersion and fragmentation. If they could unite on a single platform, mainstream political processes would have to eventually be responsive to their aspirations.  These initiatives have been kept alive through the years. But the objective socio-economic-political reality of the last decade of the millennium suggests that the original objectives need to be reassessed, and their relevance in the present context be re-examined.

 

Multiplicity and   fragmentation   is not  the core issue.   Contemporary   relevance   is.

National Alliance of People’s Movements, People’s Resolve: ‘Sadagi’ ‘Samata’ Swavlamban’. Lokayan Bulletin. 12:5, Delhi. 1996. [J.Q41.0396LOK55]. Declartion at the NAPM convention outlining the ‘alternative’ vision of movement organisations.  Himashu Thakkar, We hope to encourage alternative lifestyles. Down to Earth, New Delhi. July, 1996. [J.Q41.150796DTE58]. An interview with Medha Patkar after the NAPM 45-day yatra.  Save the Western Ghats Movement, Report of the ‘Save the Western Ghats March and Conference’. A description of the March, the objectives, and the issues involved. [R.E60.611].  John D’Souza, Jan Vikas Andolan, 10 years on: Reflections by members during the retreat on the occasion of the 10th anniversary of JVA. CED Documentation. April, 1999.  [C.Q41.010499CED].  Peoples’ Rights over Natural Resources. JVA and Similar-Minded Movements, Dharwad. 1996. [R.E27.7].

                                                                                                                                                                               Next